Haw. Rev. Stat. § 291E-21
(b) If a health care provider who is providing medical care, in a health care facility, to any person involved in a vehicle collision:
(1) Becomes aware, as a result of any blood or urine test performed in the course of medical treatment, that:
(2) Has a reasonable belief that the person was the operator of a vehicle involved in the collision,
the health care provider shall notify, as soon as reasonably possible, any law enforcement officer present at the health care facility to investigate the collision. If no law enforcement officer is present, the health care provider shall notify the county police department in the county where the collision occurred. If the health care provider is aware of any blood or urine test result, as provided in paragraph (1), but lacks information to form a reasonable belief as to the identity of the operator involved in a vehicle collision, as provided in paragraph (2), then the health care provider shall give notice to a law enforcement officer present or to the county police department, as applicable, for each person involved in a vehicle collision whose alcohol concentration in the person's blood meets or exceeds the amount specified in section 291E-61(a)(4) or 291E-61.5(a)(2)(D) or whose blood or urine contains one or more drugs. The notice by the health care provider shall consist of the name of the person being treated, the blood alcohol concentration or drug content disclosed by the test, and the date and time of the administration of the test. This notice shall be deemed to satisfy the intoxication element necessary to establish the probable cause requirement set forth in subsection (c).
(d) The law enforcement officer shall make the request under subsection (c) to the hospital or medical facility treating the person from whom the blood or urine is to be recovered. If the person is not injured or refuses to be treated for any injury, the law enforcement officer shall make the request of a blood or urine sample under subsection (c) to a person authorized under section 291E-12; provided that a law enforcement officer may transport that person to another police facility or a hospital or medical facility that is capable of conducting a breath, blood, or urine test. Upon the request of the law enforcement officer that blood or urine be recovered pursuant to this section, and except where the person to perform the withdrawal of a blood sample or to obtain a urine sample or the responsible attending personnel at the hospital or medical facility determines in good faith that recovering or attempting to recover blood or urine from the person presents an imminent threat to the health of the medical personnel or others, the person authorized under section 291E-12 shall:
(f) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:
"Health care facility" includes any program, institution, place, building, or agency, or portion thereof, private or public, whether organized for profit or not, that is used, operated, or designed to provide medical diagnosis, treatment, or rehabilitative or preventive care to any person. The term includes health care facilities that are commonly referred to as hospitals, outpatient clinics, organized ambulatory health care facilities, emergency care facilities and centers, health maintenance organizations, and others providing similarly organized services regardless of nomenclature.
"Health care provider" means a person who is licensed, certified, or otherwise authorized or permitted by law to administer health care in the ordinary course of business or practice of a profession.
[L 2000, c 189, pt of §23; am L 2001, c 157, §12; am L 2003, c 72, §1; am L 2004, c 90, §6]
Where there was insufficient evidence to conclude that defendant was involved in a "collision", as is necessary for a police officer to obtain a blood sample from defendant without defendant's consent, the requirements of subsection (c) were not met; thus, the blood draw was improper and should have been suppressed. 114 H. 406, 163 P.3d 1143 (2007).
Where prosecution failed to establish in the record that police officers were justified to act without a warrant for reasons beyond the risk of blood alcohol dissipation over time, district court erred in holding that the totality of the circumstances supported a finding that exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless extraction of defendant's blood sample. 139 H. 203 (App.), 386 P.3d 487 (2016).